Well that's basically the point. You wouldn't get draws and even if a team manages to "save the match" with wickets in hand, if they are chasing a much larger target that they would probably not reach then they "lose" the match. It makes sense from a pragmatic point of view but you will lose that one aspect of Test cricket, the part where teams have to bowl the other side out twice to win.

It is not that "one aspect" of test cricket.........it is the fundamental point of the whole game mate.

Test cricket is all about both skills, not how many runs you make. Score a gazillions runs in your two batting innings, it should not win you a test match unless your bowlers back you up and are good enough to take 20 wickets......they invented limited overs cricket for people that don't have the appreciation for this.

These threads are getting ****ing tiresome. I come here to discuss cricket with like minded people who share a common interest in test cricket.........go some place else if you can't comprehend why a team that survives the last overs of a test match with 1 wicket in hand even if they are 300 runs behind draws the game. FMD.

For the record - I am not advocating bore draws played out on roads where the bowlers don't have a chance.......that's a whole different debate.

It is not that "one aspect" of test cricket.........it is the fundamental point of the whole game mate.

Test cricket is all about both skills, not how many runs you make. Score a gazillions runs in your two batting innings, it should not win you a test match unless your bowlers back you up and are good enough to take 20 wickets......they invented limited overs cricket for people that don't have the appreciation for this.

These threads are getting ****ing tiresome. I come here to discuss cricket with like minded people who share a common interest in test cricket.........go some place else if you can't comprehend why a team that survives the last overs of a test match with 1 wicket in hand even if they are 300 runs behind draws the game. FMD.

For the record - I am not advocating bore draws played out on roads where the bowlers don't have a chance.......that's a whole different debate.

Bro it wasn't my idea, I think it's stupid too. I was just clarifying what he meant to say. So calm down son.

Bro it wasn't my idea, I think it's stupid too. I was just clarifying what he meant to say. So calm down son.

Originally Posted by TheJediBrah

Well that's basically the point. You wouldn't get draws and even if a team manages to "save the match" with wickets in hand, if they are chasing a much larger target that they would probably not reach then they "lose" the match. It makes sense from a pragmatic point of view

Some interesting points. The toss abolishment is something that I wouldn't be completely against, I think it has merits in theory.
DL use in a test match is not something I agree with, on the face of it. What's your basis behind the DL use? It would destroy something like 10 overs left in a match with only 2-3 wickets in hand. That's a good test match that a team effectively loses in essence. Or am I as usual missing the point?

To be honest, I do not understand the DL Method Calculator well. I asked my friend (a Cricket mad, Essex fan) about that, but he answered "That is quite complicated".

It combines wickets remaining, balls remaining and runs needed to come up with a 'par' score that the batting side needs to be at at the end of every over in case the rain starts. It wouldn't work in tests because there is no limited overs in tests - you can bat as long as you like which means the side chasing might not have a fair amount of overs to chase their runs, so they shouldn't be penalised by losing the match

Originally Posted by Dawood Ahmad

Hamish, no body knows even name of him
But Ponting, there's great fame of him

Have a look at the posts of the "people like this".......he has also suggested cricket use round bats like baseball.

Seriously mods, time to do something about these Locko threads...........beyond unfunny now surely??

I posted that in "General Sports Forum" under the title "bat/ball sports". I simply wanted to see an exhibition game using Baseball-style bats, not seriously suggesting a change of the Laws of Cricket.

I agree with you 100%, but the majority of people who will spend money on cricket may disagree it seems. There is one all powerful motivating force for the powers guiding Cricket, and that's $$$.

Just look at the Big Bash taking almost 2 months. Complete joke.

I don't think anyone that spends money to go watch test cricket would disagree with me. Sure there will be T20 or ODI fans that would rather watch paint dry than watch a day of test cricket, I get that.....but surely we are talking different markets here??

To go back to the original point, draws are a part and parcel of test cricket. Any change in the rules to reduce or eliminate them would go against what test cricket is all about (with the exception of more bowler friendly wickets but again, that's another discussion) **** with test cricket and you won't get new fans you'll just lose the ones you've already got IMO.

If it was up to me then Tests would always be the pinnacle and T20s should remain a side show, but when the general public speaks through ticket sales there's no way you can stop the slide.

Big Bash games have been getting massive attendances, and probably will get ratings when on Channel 10 this season, whereas look at Shield games and Ryobi cup . . . 50 people go if your lucky. Even Tests are getting lower attendance than Big Bash.

There will always be plenty of Hard-core Test fans (at least for the next 20 years, but who knows what the next generation will prefer) but T20's popularity speaks for itself and will become more important while ODI dies and Tests become less important.